MOHAMMAD FAROOQ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WAR54D-1(4), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1355/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed a condonation application before the CIT(A) and the reason for the delay was not explained. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide on the condonation of delay and the appeal on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 3,88,97,480/- with an addition under Section 68. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee claims the dismissal was ex-parte due to a delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 17.11.2020

ORDER

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/11/2018 passed by CIT(A)-Ghaziabad, for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal

are as under:- “1. Because order of Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case;

2. Because, Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-party without providing proper opportunity of being heard as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause in not appearing on the date of hearing. 3. therefore, it is prayed with folded hands that the order of Ld.CIT(A) may kindly be set aside to provide an opportunity of being heard.”

3. Assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 7,90,580/-. The assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was passed thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 3,88,97,480/- making addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 2 months in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not knowing about the filing of the appeal against the said assessment order. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay may be condoned and the CIT (Appeals) be directed to hear the appeal on merit.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT (Appeals).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It can be seen that the assessee has not filed the condonation application before the CIT(A). The reason for condonation of delay before the CIT (Appeals) was not explained, but the delay is that of 2 months in filing appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the delay needs to be explained by filing the proper application before the CIT(A). Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back the entire issue to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for deciding the condonation of delay and the appeal of the assessee on merit. Thus, we are remanding back the issue to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for deciding the appeals on delay and on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Thus, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, for statistical purpose.

8.

In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 25th Day of November, 2020.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →